Shanba wrote:Please don't speculate on who's a mason, that'SJust common sense
Why not?
If we knew who masons were, we'd be able to cross off three names off the "Maybe Mafia" list.
Although the Mason revealing would mean NK for Mafia.
Are you a Mason trying to keep under the radar? I doubt it.
Suddenly you seem so scummy, looking back on your posts.
It's an idiotic move? Speculating on who you think the masons are gives the scum valuable clues about who the masons actually are, and that's not a good thing. Do you honestly believe that revealing the masons d1 is a good idea? They're much more useful later days, left alive. If one is in danger of being lynched, they'll claim. We don't need to cross them off the list because they will cross themselves off the list if they need to, without revealing to the scum good nightkill targets.
Shanba wrote:Sammich's logic is unimpressive. Samruc's is better. Don't think either are great lynches right now, though I'd favour Sammich over Samruc. especilly don't like him saying he doesn't OMGUS and then FoSsing Samruc in what amounts to OMGUS. Actually, I just convinced myself. Unvote vote: Sammich
Suddenly you agree with Samruc.
Coming from the guy who says:
Shanba wrote:Anyway. My vote was mostly unsubstantiated. Putting pressure on a player I'm not sure on is not a bad move.
Not all votes have the intent of lynching, as I said before.
Yet SirT's clearly did. Which I felt was odd, given the strength of the case.
Suddenly you feel the need to vote me only after Samruc's post? What's up with that?
Your attack on Samruc is weak, much like this attack on me which simply places a bunch of quotes together and claims them to be inconsistent when if you think for a moment you'll see they're not.
Did this have the makings of a lynch intent? The only real reason for a YB lynch was that YB hadn't posted in reply to suspicion.
[/quote] Early attacks on players for little reason give good info, whereas attacking a player late in the day based on craplogic makes you look scummy.
Even more, what's with this? It's not in the same context as my last quote, in which you said:
Shanba wrote:
Putting pressure on a player I'm not sure on is not a bad move.
Shanba wrote:Unvote
The case there was on YB was weak. I voted for him and I admit that. Why, therefore, is this wagon growing this quickly and is this big? Unhappy bout that. unvote vote lemming
That makes that post absolutely bullcrap. How can you be unhappy with an unsure BW on YogurtBandit and then say voting while unsure is fine?
Voting=pressure, pressure=info, voting =/= bandwagoning to lynch, lynching =lack of info. which is what Sir T clearly wanted and why my vote was on him for so long. Bandwagons give us info pressuring players gives us info, quicklynching a player on a weak case ends the day and stops us accumulating info. The two are not equivalent, and one is clearly superior. SirT was watning the second, ad the wagon was getting dangerously close to lynch, so I unvoted and voted SirT. This is simple common sense.
Vote: Shanba
Just really inconsistant. Don't take this as an OMGUS, I have my reasons as to vote you.
You're really reaching to make that not OMGUS. Really, really reaching.
(10:50:24 PM) xcaykex: GODDAMNIT I DONT WANNA GET RID OF MY TENTACLE RAPE PORN
Sammich: Masons should be outed ONLY if the masons are certain they have at least 2 scum, and that too only one should claim at all, keeping the other two secret. Outing masons at this point makes absolutely no sense at all.
I'm responding to my prod. I haven't had time to sit and read the thread since I still don't have internet at my house. I'm getting internet Monday, and will catch up as soon as that happens. I'm sorry once again for my inactivity. I feel horrible about it.
"Tricks and treachery are the practice of fools that don't have the brains enough to be honest." ~ Benjamin Franklin
